- Companies Index
- Government Index
- Home
- About Us
- Our Work
- Why It Matters
- Defence Corruption Risks Typology
- Diagnosing Corruption Risks
- Metrics & Surveys
- Self-Assessment Process
- research
- Companies Index
- Preliminary Results
- Northrop Grumman
- MTU Aero Engines
- Babcock International
- DCNS
- EMBRAER
- Fujitsu
- Lockheed Martin
- Rolls Royce
- Safran
- Thales
- BAE Systems
- Dyncorp
- General Electric
- Harris Corporation
- Hewlett Packard
- Raytheon
- Honeywell
- ITT Corporation
- KBR Inc
- L3 Communications
- Nec Corporation
- Rockwell Collins
- SAIC
- ST Engineering
- Meggit
- Arsenal AD
- Cobham
- Curtiss Wright
- Day & Zimmermann
- General Dynamics
- Patria
- QinetiQ
- Rafael Advanced Defense Systems
- RUAG
- Russian Helicopters
- Saab
- Textron
- Ultra Electronics
- Serco
- EADS
- Dassault Aviation
- Fluor
- Diehl Stiftung
- CAE Inc
- MDBA Missile Systems
- Thyssen Krupp 2
- Finmeccanica 2
- Goodrich Corporation
- United Technologies
- Aselsan
- Agility
- Jacobs Engineering
- Wyle
- Cubic Corporation
- AAR
- Alion Science and Technology
- ATK
- Booz Allen Hamilton
- CSC
- FLIR
- Mantech
- Teledyne Technologies
- VSE Corporation
- Nammo
- Daewoo
- Samsung
- MTU
- Otokar
- Oshkosh Corporation
- Krauss-Maffei Wegmann
- Damen Schelde
- LIG Nex 1
- Poongsan
- Chemring
- Rheinmetall
- Hindustan Aeronautics
- Navantia
- CACI International
- General Atomics
- SRA International
- SRC Inc
- URS Corporation
- Fincantieri
- Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
- Indra
- Aviation Industry Corporation
- Avibras
- Avio
- Battelle
- Bharat Earth Movers Limited
- Bharat Electronics
- Boustead
- Bumar Group
- China Shipbuilding Industry Corporation
- Navistar
- Doosan DST
- Elbit Systems
- GKN
- Gorky Automobile Plant
- Israel Aerospace Industries
- Israel Military Industries
- Kawasaki Heavy Industries
- Mitsubishi Electric
- Nexter
- Zodiac SA Holding
- Denel
- RTI Systems
- Accenture
- Abu Dhabi Shipbuilding
- Tatra
- testing
- Defence Companies Anti-Corruption Index: Preliminary results - Part B
- Preliminary Results
- Government Index
- Gov Index Preliminary Results
- Kenya
- Russia
- Ghana
- Hungary
- Cyprus
- Argentina
- France
- Cote D'Ivoire
- Serbia
- Afghanistan
- Iran
- Bulgaria
- Kazakhstan
- Croatia
- Algeria
- Jordan
- Thailand
- Ukraine
- Italy
- India
- Nigeria
- Iraq
- Eritrea
- Cameroon
- Syria
- Sweden
- Somalia
- China
- Democratic Republic of the Congo
- South Africa
- Israel
- Kuwait
- Latvia
- West Bank
- Rwanda
- Singapore
- Ethiopia
- Nepal
- Turkey
- Pakistan
- United Kingdom
- Bangladesh
- Brazil
- USA
- Belarus
- Australia
- Georgia
- Poland
- Qatar
- Uzbekistan
- Venezuela
- Colombia
- Greece
- Saudi Arabia
- Austria
- Morocco
- Yemen
- Zimbabwe
- Indonesia
- Bahrain
- Sri Lanka
- Angola
- Tunisia
- South Korea
- Bosnia and Herzegovina
- Mexico
- Czech Republic
- Lebanon
- Singapore
- Norway
- Philippines
- UAE
- Tanzania
- Japan
- Malaysia
- Germany
- Oman
- Slovakia
- Chile
- Spain
- Uganda
- Lybia
- Egypt
- Taiwan
- With Governments & Armed Forces
- With the Defence Industry
- Education & Training
- Tackling Defence Corruption Around the World
- Focus Areas
- Tools & Resources
- Publications
- FAQ
- Media Room
- Defence Corruption News Digest
- News Archive
- Upcoming Events
- Our Programme in the Media
- What we are Reading/Listening to
- Press Releases
- Events Archive
- 'The Transparency of Defence Budgets' got high media attention in launch in Malaysia
- Blog
- jobs
Press release: 70% of governments fail to protect against corruption in the defence sector
Last Updated on Tuesday, 29 January 2013 Monday, 28 January 2013
|
London, 29 January 2013 – Seventy per cent of countries leave the door open to waste and security threats as they lack the tools to prevent corruption in the defence sector, according to the first ever index measuring how governments prevent and counter corruption in defence, released by Transparency International UK’s Defence and Security Programme. Those with poor controls include two-thirds of the largest arms importers and half of the biggest arms exporters in the world. Germany and Australia are the only countries that have strong anti-corruption mechanisms according to the index, with measures in place such as robust parliamentary oversight of defence policy. Nine countries ̶ Algeria, Angola, Cameroon, DRC, Egypt, Eritrea, Libya, Syria, and Yemen ̶ exhibit critical risk, lacking basic measures such as controls to enable accountability, making institutionalisation of anti-corruption mechanisms in the sector near impossible. South America and Eastern Europe, on the other hand, show lower risk of corruption thanks to strong technical controls in areas such as administration of audits. The Government Defence Anti-Corruption Indexanalyses what 82 countries do to reduce corruption risks. These countries accountedfor 94 per cent of the global military expenditure in 2011, equivalent to USD 1.6 trillion.Countries are scored in bands from very low risk (A) to critical risk (F) according to detailed assessment across 77 indicators that coverfive prominent risk areas in the sector: politics, finance, personnel, operations, and procurement. “Corruption in defence is dangerous, divisive and wasteful, and the cost is paid by citizens, soldiers, companies and governments.Yet the majority of governments do too little to prevent it, leaving numerous opportunities to hide corruption away from public scrutiny and waste money that could be better spent,” explains Mark Pyman, Director of Transparency International UK’s Defence and Security Programme. Transparency International calls on governments to make this traditionally secretive sector, which involves large public contracts, more open. Defence establishments should increase citizens’ access to information about defence budgets and procurement. Legislators should have stronger controls and oversight of the sector, possessing the teeth and access to cut corruption down. Transparency International estimates the global cost of corruption in the defence sector to be a minimum of USD 20 billion per year, based on data from the World Bank and the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). This equates to the total sum pledged by the G8in 2009 to fight world hunger. Politicians exercise little oversight. Armed Forces fear blowing the whistle. Citizens are kept in the dark. The Index shows that only 15 per cent of governments assessed possess political oversight of defence policy that is comprehensive, accountable, and effective. In 45 per cent of countries there is little or no oversight of defence policy, and in half of nations there is minimal evidence of scrutiny of defence procurement. The study also finds that citizens are frequently denied basic knowledge about the defence sector. Half of the countries’ defence budgets lack transparency entirely, or include only very limited, aggregated information. In 70 per cent of the countries, citizens are denied a simple indication of how much is spent by their government on secret items. According to Dr. Oliver Cover, the principal author of this study, “this Index shows unequivocally that there is a severe risk of corruption in this sector. It is a shock that in some areas it is also so poorly understood, for example in conflict situations, where corruption can become deeply embedded. Our index will help everyone to understand and address the risks. Governments should clean up this sector, and our report will give them practical solutions to achieve transparency. Doing so will save the lives of troops and citizens—and governments billions of dollars.” -ends- Media contact:
Maria Gili, +44 (0)20 7922 7975; maria.gili@transparency.org.uk Notes to editors
For further information, analyses, and recommendations, please visit http://government.defenceindex.org Download the Government Defence Against Corruption Index report. |






New index also finds that half of countries do not publish their